The Elevator Pitch page

[Anonymous]

A few weeks ago, I came across this post, which is talking about the idea of a 'elevator pitch' for crossfit:


http://byerscrossfit.blogspot.com/2009/05/elevator-pitch.html


As with crossfit, primal is something that's difficult to explain to people. The general idea of 'the elevator pitch' is a short paragraph that quickly explains the core gist of the subject.


So, my question to you, the Primal community, what is the 'Elevator Pitch' for Primal?

[Dave_Ach]

A few ideas that come to mind are:

it's a lifestyle not a diet

it's about living the way our body is meant to live/designed

Brings your body and mind back to its natural balance


... And much more.

[BeanGolem]

I think the elevator pitch for Primal in general is easily grasped by people -- "Live the way humans evolved to live".

However, my struggle is mostly with the nutrition side of things. When I'm with a group at a restaurant and I end up saying "Oh, I don't eat grains" I usually get a few curious people. I tell the the short answer is "Because they're poison" and then offer the "long answer" if they're interested. My question would be: What key points of the "no grain" methodology do you usually hit on in casual conversation? People balk when you bring up gluten and lectin and phytates and insulin resistance and inflammation and large LDL and small LDL and the rest of the actual sciency stuff.

[TigerJ]

The Whole9 folks did a post about this a while ago and so I dug it up -

http://whole9life.com/2010/05/the-paleo-pitch/

[say_rahhh]

I've got no pitch for anyone. If I am offered food that's not primal and somebody presses then I will explain that I don't eat grains, sugar or factory-produced foods. If they press on that, I will explain that those foods should not be consumed by humans.

[Grumpycakes]

I dunno about using the word "evolved" as a sales pitch in a country where most people aren't taught what evolution is.

[tangentrider]

"Evolved" is also a hot button word, as has been seen in some threads. "Adapted" may be less so.

[kmacphee]

When offered something that is not on my list, I usually say no thanks. If it gets to the point where I feel a need to explain myself, and they specifically ask me what I eat, I respond with the well known Crossfit saying... "I eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch and no sugar."

Then I will add to that, "most of the time". There are times, however, where I will politely accept what the host offers, and take it from my 20% category because I know how time consuming shopping, preparing and cooking meals can be. It's just my way of being respectful. For example, I will accept spaghetti, but I will load up the meat balls and only eat a small portion of the pasta. For me, life is too short to worry about every meal, especially when I only eat out occasionally. Most of the time our Sunday dinners are at my mother in law's and she is a wonderful cook...but she also respects my choices so when I pass on the pasta, or only take meat and veggies, she doesn't mind.

[Clint]

I like to think of the PB in terms of diet as "only eating things that could be eaten raw". I say "could" because there are things that probably shouldn't be eaten raw, like meat that is purchased, but in general you CAN eat raw meat. Grains, on the other hand, have to be processed in some way, before the human body can digest it. If I can't eat it raw, I guess I wasn't meant to eat it.

I'm not a food freak, though. If I'm at some occasion where I feel it would be easier to eat a non-primal dish than to avoid it, I will.

[MamaGrok]

I like that definition, Clint, but what about foods like collards, that really do (so far as I know) need to be cooked?

"Live the way humans evolved to live".

I typically say "were made" instead of "evolved." Avoids unnecessary theological argumentation and leaves room for evolution, design, or design by evolution.

With grains, I usually take a more moderate approach (than my own personal opinion that they're poison) and share that traditionally, breads were made with long rise times (like sourdough), which breaks down the gluten bonds to make them more digestible . Then I just say that b/c modern grains are hybridized to be super high in gluten, and not allowed to rise several days (usually just an hour or two), and we're told (and do) to eat 7-11 servings per day of them, most of us have a lot of gut damage from eating this indigestible gluten, and even those of us without celiac disease or gluten intolerance now do better to avoid them as much as possible.

Most people have appreciated this approach - in a quick conversation in a group of people, they're unlikely to believe "an entire food group is poison," but they are very likely to understand "we've abused this particular food, which traditionally was eaten in a much different form, in much smaller quantities." Kind of like the soy discussion.